Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Governance Logo Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Ottawa County panel debates use of county logo after commissioners' letters to Grand Valley State University
Summary
The committee examined whether individual commissioners may use county letterhead or the county logo when writing to outside institutions, with commissioners divided over whether such letters created public confusion and whether stricter guidelines or disclaimers are needed under board rule 3.1.
Ottawa County commissioners spent a lengthy portion of the April 10 Planning & Policy Committee meeting debating whether individual commissioners may use county letterhead or the county logo when communicating with outside institutions, following several recent letters sent to Grand Valley State University.
The discussion centered on board rule 3.1, which requires commissioners to act collectively when speaking for the board. Several commissioners and members of the public said the logo created confusion among residents who read the letters online and assumed the communications carried the county’s official endorsement. Others argued individual commissioners have a duty to represent constituent concerns and may properly use their official title and county-branded stationery if the message is clearly identified as the writer’s personal views.
County staff, legal counsel and commissioners discussed a range of possible approaches: (a) leave current practice unchanged, (b) allow individualized use of logo or county letterhead but require a clear disclaimer such as “From the desk of [Commissioner Name], representing District X — views expressed are personal,” (c) create commissioner-specific “from the desk of” stationary that includes a short disclaimer, or (d) prohibit logo usage by individual commissioners outright. Several commissioners recommended a narrow, practical compromise: create an approved, county-managed “commissioner letterhead” template that includes a standard disclaimer and requires staff sign-off to avoid public confusion.
Speakers noted the distinction between individual communications and formal board actions, such as resolutions, which require collective action and are the appropriate vehicle when the board speaks as one body. Some commissioners said they would have preferred to have used the board’s resolution process to voice concerns collectively rather than sending individual letters; others said they acted on direct constituent concerns and that their personal advocacy was appropriate.
No formal disciplinary action or new rule was adopted at the meeting. Several commissioners asked staff and legal counsel to draft proposed language or bylaw amendments — for example, a short amendment to board rule 3.1 or a new administrative policy governing use of the county logo by elected officials — and to return those proposals to the full board for approval.
Ending: County legal and administrative staff will bring proposed language (a template disclaimer and a short bylaw or administrative policy) to the full board for consideration; no immediate sanctions or policy changes were imposed at the committee meeting.
